Baker v. Clarke, No. 7:2018cv00620 - Document 16 (W.D. Va. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 4/9/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
CLERK' OFFICE tJ.8.Dlsm CouRr 'SAT DANMLL E, V8 F ILED IN TH E U NITED STA TES DISTR IC T C O U RT AFE 29 2219 FOR TH E W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA R OA N O K E DIVISIO N JuulA .D DLEM CL@RK eY: DEPLJTY cLE DW AYNE BAKER mka. D EW AY N E BA K ER , CA SE N O .7:18CV 00620 Petitioner, V. M EM O M N D U M O PIN IO N H AR O LD CL AR K E,D IRE CTER , By:H on.Jacltson L.K iser Senior U nited States D istrictJudge R espondent. Thisaction,broughtasapetitionforawritofhabeascorpu;pursuantto28U.S.C.j2254, isripeon am otion to dismissthat1willaddressin anotheropinion andorder.Upon review ofthe record,however,1find itappropriateto deny the petitioner's separate motions for interlocutory injunctivereliefandappointmentofcollnsel. Becausepreliminary injunctivereliefisan extraordinary remedy,theparty seeking such reliefm ustm ake a clearshowing G:thathe islikely to succeed on the m erits,thathe islikely to sufferirreparablehnrm inthe absence ofpreliminaryrelief,thatthebalanceofequitiestipsin llis favor,andthataninjunctionisinthepublicinterest.''W interv.Nat.Res.Def.CotmcilsInc.,555 U.S.7,20 (2008). A11fotlrfactorsmustbemet. ld. To qualify asirreparable,thefearedharm m ustbeGGneitherremotenorspeculative,butactualand im minent,''TuckerAm honv Realty Cop . v.Schlesincer,888F.2d 969,975(2d Cir.1989)(internalquotationmarksandcitationsomitled), Baker v. Clarke suchthatitposesarealandimmediatethreat,DanRivermInc.v.lcnhn,701F.2d278,283(4thCir. Doc. 16 1983). The petitioner,D eW ayne Baker,allegesthatoflcials atG reen R ock CorrectionalCenter are mnking ççan attemptto trgnsfer ghimj in retaliation for bringing litigation (and) filing grievances.i' (M ot.1EECF No.11j.) Bakerassertsthatan officermentionedtohim aEiplan to transfer(Baker)tollighlevel4distantfacilitywhere(hejwouldnotothem isebehoused,seriously threatening ghisjlifeand safety,depriving (Balterjwhohasdisabilitiesofvisitation with family members.'' Id. Bakeralso believesthatsuch atransferttwillaffectghis)abilityto litigate ghisj suitcases''because prison could delay transporting his legalm aterials to the next prison facility andcausehim to rnisscourtdeadlines.Id.at1-2.Finally,Bakerfearsthatatransferwoulddeprive him ofthe(ThillipsRespironicsEasyLifeC-PAP breathingmasktotreatghis)sleep apnea.''Id. at2.Ontheseallegations,Bakerasksmeto orderGreen Rock officialsnotto transferhim . Inm ateshaveno constitutionalrightto behoused in any particularprison within the state wherethey areconvicted orto avoid being transferred to allighersectlrityprison facility.Olim v. W akinekona,461U.S.238,245 (1983), .M eachllm v.Fano,427U.S.215,223-224 (1976). In addition,neitherprisonersnortheirw ould-bevisitorshave a ftmdnm entalconstim tionalrightto prisonvisitation.W hitev.Keller,438F.Supp.110,117(D.M d.1977),affd,588F.2d913(4th Cir.1978).Totheextentthatsomerighttophysicalassociation sutwivesincarceration,thatright m ay be lawfully restricted ordenied altogether tk ough prison regulations rationally related to legitimate penologicalinterests. Overton v.Bazzetta,539 U.S.126,132 (2003)(finding no constimtionalinfringem entwhereprisonpoliciesprevented someinm atesfrom visiting with som e relatives).Thus,IcnnnotfindthatBakerhasshown anylikelihood ofsuccesson themeritsofa claim thathehasarightto avoidbeingm oved to ahighersecurity facility atsom edistancefrom hisfam ily. M ore im portantly,how ever,B aker doesnotdescribe any eventor officialaction atGreen Rock,otherthan an offhand verbalthreat,on which he bases hisspeculative fears of a retaliatory transfer,deprivation ofhis legalpaperwork,or lack of access to his C-PA P device. Finding no factualbasis for a conclusion that Baker is likely to suffer im m inent or irreparable hnrm in the absence oftheextraordinary reliefhe seeks,Iconcludethathehasnotm adethbfactualshowings required under W inter. Therefore,1m ustdeny hism otion. Bakeralsoasksthecourtto appointcounselforhim in thishabeasaction.H estatesthathe cannotafford cotmsel,thathehasno education in the law,and thathiscaseiscom plex. Hedoes notdem onstrateexceptionalcircumstancesthatwarrantappointmentofcounselatthistime. See 18 U.S.C.j 3006A(a)(2)(B) (authorizing appointment of counselin j2254 case at court's discretiononlyuponfindingthatEdtheinterestsofjusticesorequire').Bakermayrenew hismotion forappointmentofcounselifan evidentiary hearing isscheduled in tlziscase. TheClerk isdirectedto sendcopiesofthism emorandum opinion andaccompanying order to thepetitionerand to counselofrecord fortherespondent. Ex lx lo m thisQln dayofApril2019. , % E OR U N ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JUD GE